Sam: Believe me. We know. In fact I feel a little ad nauseum just thinking about it.
I can assure you yet again, that on such a night as was, unless there was a haze on the horizon...an observer would see it clearly with a good telescope or binoculars.
No, I was not there, but here is the sworn evidence from an eye-witness who was there regarding the conditions prevailing about 40 miles east of the wreck site and 2 hours before Titanic hit the iceberg. Do you think this witness was mistaken too?>>I can assure you yet again, that on such a night as was, unless there was a haze on the horizon...an observer would see it clearly with a good telescope or binoculars.<<
I can assure you that you weren't there. I have no interest in your convoluted explanations for what Lord or Groves said. Their words speak for themselves.
No confusion here. These were the words of one whose day job was to constantly scan the horizon... Charles Lightoller:There is a difference between seeing a star extinguish as it sets and seeing a clear dividing line between sea and sky right on the "visible" horizon. Furthermore, don't confuse a view from only 4 feet above the water to one at 45 feet or more above. As Groves said, "No, you could not see where the horizon in the sky finished but you could see stars right down as far as the sea."
I think that is the point of the case against Californian ?This is the subject of endless debate but what I fault the Californian for is not even attempting to respond.
I don't need a lesson on how to use these tables or how to navigate by the stars, Sam, I was using them to navigate and "shooting" the stars on a daily basis years before you were born.Your pushing this on the horizon business so you can claim that the flashes from the rockets of Carpathia were seen precisely on the sea horizon so you can then use a geographic range table for max distance between a light and an observer. Of course, the height of light we are talking about here is that of an exploding distress signal throwing stars. But if they were literally just flashes on the sea horizon, then they could not have been identified as rockets up in the sky as Gibson said they were.
Again, you confuse seeing stars setting (or rising) with the ability to see a sharp horizon line as during nautical twilight, something that is needed to accurately take a set of star sights. From the bridge of Californian the height of eye was about 45 ft. The dip of the sea horizon was about 6 arcminutes, or about 1/5 the diameter of a full moon; a very tiny amount. But according to Capt. Lord and 3/O Groves, one could not actually "define where the sky ended and the water commenced (Lord)" and "you could not see where the horizon in the sky finished (Groves)", although they both, like Lightoller, said that they could see stars low down on the horizon setting or rising. (And please don't tell me that they were just talking about naked eye observations.) Seeing a flash from a rocket right on the horizon means there was no discernable vertical angle, the angle from the horizontal was 0°. I think I posted this before, but it is from Table 15 out of Bowditch. But, of course, you will not like the results because it places Carpathia much closer to Californian at 3:20am than you are willing to accept.
View attachment 45220
And I don't need a lesson from you on the use of the Bowditch tables.I don't need a lesson on how to use these tables or how to navigate by the stars
I highly doubt that unless you are a nonagenarian or older.I was using them to navigate and "shooting" the stars on a daily basis years before you were born.